Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends denying code change that would defer DRC review for PUDs
Summary
The Putnam County Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a county-initiated Land Development Code amendment (LDC 25-000003) that would move Development Review Committee (DRC) review to after PUD adoption, citing concerns about loss of early technical review, public input, and legal risk.
The Putnam County Planning Commission on an administrative hearing recommended that the Board of County Commissioners deny LDC 25-000003, a county-initiated text amendment that would change Articles 4 and 11 of the Putnam County Land Development Code to require Development Review Committee review only after a planned unit development is adopted by the BOCC.
Zachary Baker, Planning and Development Services, described the proposal as a county-initiated text amendment and said staff is recommending approval to align code language with staff implementation. "This is a county initiated text amendment," Baker said during his presentation.
Commissioners pushed back at length. Several members said the existing process — with preliminary DRC review before public hearings — provides necessary multi-agency technical feedback on matters such as stormwater, transportation and public safety and helps avoid costly, last-minute denials. "I will not be voting for this. I will be voting to deny this," one commissioner said after outlining concerns that an applicant could spend significant funds only to learn a proposed PUD would not meet standards.
Public comment reinforced those concerns. Michael Woodward of Interlachen told the commission that the DRC's expert review is essential to determine whether proposed alternate development standards "are in fact adequate and appropriate substitutes" before the BOCC acts.
A motion that the commission recommend denial of LDC 25-000003 as inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Putnam County comprehensive plan carried on roll call. Commissioners Williams, Morris, Hancock, Sheffield and the chair voted to recommend denial; the chair said the recommendation will proceed to the Board of County Commissioners for final action.
The commission’s discussion touched repeatedly on two recurring points: that DRC comments can be made nonbinding in writing to reduce equitable-estoppel risk, and that waiting until after entitlement to perform technical review would reduce opportunities to shape developer agreements and required mitigation before entitlements are established. Staff described DRC practice nationally and locally, and acknowledged ambiguity in code language governing the committee’s procedures and timeline.
The commission’s recommendation is advisory; the Board of County Commissioners will make the final decision at a future public meeting.
